Independent Law journalists report on legal news for consumers, litigants & Scotland's legal community including features on justice, access to justice, law reform, the judiciary, politics & in-depth investigations, analysis and commentaries on legal related issues.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

What good is new legislation to remedy an issue of corruption & public confidence in our legal system, without a review of the past ?

Not much good to anyone, really ... certainly of no use to those countless people who have struggled over the years, even, decades, against the odds after they had lost everything at the hands of their lawyer, and against the legal professions's system of self regulation of complaints against crooked lawyers by the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates.

Well, there has to be an answer & a solution to this problem .. as there must literally be thousands of people from over the years who have had complaints against their lawyers made a mess of by the Law Society of Scotland .. and with the passing of the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, it's now time to consider this question.

As a starter to what I hope will be a productive discussion & eventual solution & settlement of this thorny issue, I have raised a petition at the Scottish Parliament, which you can view here.

Petition by Peter Cherbi calling for the Scottish Parliament to seek an effective, transparent and wholly independent means of review of cases of alleged injustice, caused by actions and decisions of the Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates, relating to the regulation of complaints made by members of the public against the legal profession, either by giving such powers to the new Scottish Legal Complaints Commission or by setting up an independent review commission.

I have to confess, I am not a person who has much confidence in the Petitions system of the Scottish Parliament .. principally because I know of so much which goes on behind the scenes to kill off the controversial petitions or those which could actually do some good for the country. Let's say .. its a mixture of politicians wanting to kill off the public's ideas, while taking credit for the whole thing at a later date, and pure simple old corruption, where professions & interests who could be badly affected by such nefarious ideas as transparency, honesty & increased consumer rights, lobby, nay .. order the Parliament to drop any such petition which they care to kill off.

However, that aside, it's definitely time for the debate to start on how to resolve the legal profession's 'sins of the past', where countless complaints, frauds, fiddles, & more have been covered up by the Law Society of Scotland to allow crooked lawyers to carry on practicing, at the expense of ruining members of the public & denying a measure of justice which may indeed have prevented the lack of public confidence in lawyers self regulating lawyers getting to the stage it has.

When I use the term 'debate' .. I'm not talking about a useless debate lasting a few years, allowing more stalling tactics from the likes of the hateful Douglas Mill & his colleagues over at Drumsheugh Gardens to prevent the long suffering clients from having their cases finally resolved. I'm talking about the many victims we already know about, and those we don't, coming forward to have the wrongs made against them put right properly, taking into account the wasted years of having to deal with a system which was widely known to be corrupt by everyone from the public to the media, to Government..

We all know who has stood by while the likes of the Law Society of Scotland has carried on fiddling complaints. I'm talking now, of course, about the Scottish Executive and the many politicians who have had constituents writing to them for decades over problems with crooked lawyers, the Law Society of Scotland, and the system of handing complaints against legal representatives in Scotland - which has been an absolute farce - designed that way of course, to allow the legal profession to do as it pleased, and handle it's own dirty laundry, where it could arbitrarily dismiss complaints or fiddle their outcomes, effectively starve & boycott the public from obtaining legal representation to resolve issues of critical & severe complaints .. with there being no one else to turn to .. all this going on while the Scottish Executive stood by, in full knowledge of the situtation, where people suffered previously, lost their wealth, their health, livelihoods .. and nothing was done .. nothing at all, to help anyone.

We have already seen how the likes of Douglas Mill, Chief Executive of the Law Society, has personally intervened in client complaints to delay & fiddle their outcomes, so much that he lied to a Parliamentary investigation, when faced with contradictory content from his own memos .. but as if to prove such a man's feeling of omnipotence, Mill then went on to threaten the Parliament with legal action if it didn't amend the LPLA Bill to the legal profession's own liking. How can the public deal with such a hateful figure ? a man as Mill, who is obviously consumed with hate & ill feeling towards the very clients who provide his membership with their income ...

Here are some of the articles I have covered on the actions of the legal profession when it comes to regulating complaints against its own, to demonstrate the conduct of the likes of Douglas Mill & his colleagues against clients :

Having read the above, and many other reports I have made over the last year on this site, I'm sure you will agree, its time for the sins of the past to be put right, and those victims of the legal profession who have suffered previously because of the corrupt practices of self regulation should have their say, and be compensated for their interminable losses.

I am encouraging all of you, to come forward and support this petition, or write one of your own and submit it to the Parliament, and to pick up the campaign, and make it a strong one, to bring a fully independent review & settlement system into speedy existence to remedy the disgraceful sins of the past of the people we entrusted our legal business to, but who failed us in the most disgraceful way possible - with Government & politicians looking on & doing nothing to answer our pleas for help.

It is time to take back justice from these crooks, and end this shame of Scotland's legal system, where the public have indeed, been injured by Scottish Law and those who sought to protect their colleagues, at the expense of us & our lives.

Friday, January 26, 2007

The new rule of free speech, dictated by the Law Society of Scotland, says it's acceptable for the press to report on cases of complaint against crooked lawyers, as long as the tone of the story is sympathetic to the legal profession. Even better if the report is written by a lawyer who has a column in a newspaper.

The new rule of free speech, dictated by the Law Society of Scotland, also says it's not acceptable, for stories to be reported on cases of complaint against the legal profession, if the story comes from the client or 'has a moderate chance of gaining public sympathy against for victims of crooked lawyers'.

This certainly seems to be the rules which the Scotsman are operating under in recent years, as opposed to more impartial times, when they extensively covered my case against crooked Borders lawyer Drew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso, and quite a few other cases of crooked lawyers embezzling as much as they could from clients funds - even with the occasional agreeing editorial that self regulation & the Law Society of Scotland should be consigned to the dustbin of history,

However, times change, as we all know, and with two well placed articles in the Scotsman newspaper on Thursday, 25 January, the legal profession seem to be rallying support around one of Scotland's more famous Advocates over charges of making alleged sectarian comments which to most, if investigated and found to be true, by an impartial & independent regulatory body, would bring the profession into disrepute.

Alan Massie then went on in a second article, to have another go at the case involving Findlay, with comments which compare favorably with Campbell Deane's version, but tackling the "PC' or political correctness angle : Having the last laugh at PC brigade

While Campbell Deane can write 'anything but', under a headline of 'Free Speech', things were very different only a few weeks ago, where Deane's professional boss - Douglas Mill, Chief Executive of the Law Society of Scotland, recently threatened the Scottish Parliament's right of free speech & right to determine law, with Court Action if it didn't amend certain parts of the pro consumer Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, which brought independent regulation to Scotland's corrupt legal profession.

The reason that Douglas Mill, Chief Executive of the Law Society, didn't like the LPLA Bill, was that it took away the right of lawyers to fiddle complaints against other lawyers - something which has been going on in Scotland for decades. I don't remember hearing Mr Deane saying anything bad about that one, but I'm sure he would probably defend the legal profession's right to Free Speech against anyone who would allege corruption, even when there is a mountain sized box of evidence to support it.

Campbell Deane is no stranger to the arguement of free speech ... having twice taken the Sunday Herald newspaper to Court for Lord George Robertson over allegations in a forum posting on matters surrounding the Dunblane massacre. There was a settlement in the first action for Lord Robertson (although it denied Deane his claim of a wide ranging ruling against online free speech which he told us to expect in one of his Scotsman articles), and of course, Lord Robertson lost the second action against the Sunday Herald, with the Court of Session dismissing his case.

The incident involving Sheridan's Advocate & the false accusations in Court, turned into a complaint against Deane, made by Anne Colvin - the witness who was wrongly accused by Mr Sheridan's junior counsel, advocate Graeme Henderson, of having received an 18-month sentence for credit card fraud.

Quoting a report in the Herald newspaper, "After the trial last August, Ms Colvin complained to the Law Society about Campbell Deane, Mr Sheridan's solicitor, who would normally have instructed Mr Henderson's questioning.

She expected to discover the source of the claim against her, but was told that, as she was not Mr Deane's client, she could not see his explanation of events or the results of the investigation.

It has now emerged that Mr Sheridan has refused to waive his right to confidentiality with his solicitor in the case, thereby blocking efforts by Ms Colvin to find out more on the incident."

That's a bit of a strange explanation though, comparing my own experience with dealing with the Law Society of Scotland & their dubious investigations of crooked lawyers.

I understood that my complaint against Andrew Penman - LSC/94/1149, made in 1994, had established the right of a person with an interest to make a complaint & see all the evidence submitted by the lawyer in response to that complaint. At least, that's what I was told at the time, and certainly with many of the other complaints I have had to make over the years against lawyers who poorly served my family in some way or another, that rule always worked.

I wonder why now, the Law Society has changed it's tune for Anne Colvin, insisting that Mrs Colvin can't have access to the details of the investigation unless Tommy Sheridan wave his right of confidentiality with Campbell Deane, his solicitor, whom he reputedly fired anyway, due to the accusations by Graeme Henderson.

I think Ms Colvin should go back to the Law Society and demand the information on the complaint, along with Deane's explanation of events ....

You can see how some of Mr Deane's case histories & the case against Findlay compare ...it's acceptable for a QC to make alleged jokes against religions (because some claim he wasn't acting in his capacity as a QC at the time),and it's acceptable for a QC to make false allegations against members of the public (because, in the Sheridan case, he was acting in his capacity as a QC at the time) - confusing ? yes- it all seems to be within the roles ... but what it tells us is that its acceptable for members of the legal profession to say what they like, when they like, no matter how racist, how bigoted, how sectarian, how crooked, or how untrue, it may be.

Its high time to end this culture of 'do as you like' which the legal profession operate under.

Deane claims "It is understood Findlay was given the option of "putting his hands up" and paying a relatively modest fine, but flatly refused. He now faces prosecution at a formal disciplinary tribunal"

This from a source at the Faculty on the Findlay case :

Donald Findlay was given the option of a fine by the Complaints Committee, which had the power to pass sentence on him but instead decided to send his case to a Disciplinary Tribunal for sentencing - if Findlay agreed.

Findlay refused, so the Faculty reverted to rule 5 (7) e of the rules which puts the whole case back to a Disciplinary Tribunal headed by a retired judge.

This is possible, as my source said, under Rule 5 (7) d of the Faculty rules, which state that the Disciplinary Committee's powers under rule 5 (7) c give the Committee power to impose a maximum fine of £7,500 and a years suspension. The Disciplinary Committee must also be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges before it can make a ruling.

The actual wording from the Faculty of Advocates regulations follows :

Action where facts disputed

5.(7) Having considered the facts found, the evidence obtained by the Investigating Committee and any comment thereon, the Complaints Committee may:

(c) uphold the complaint in whole or in part and impose, if it thinks fit, one or more of the penalties set out in rule 6 below;

(d) with the consent of the member, uphold the complaint in whole or in part and remit it to the Disciplinary Tribunal for the imposition of one or more of the penalties set out in rule 11 below; or

(e) remit the complaint to the Disciplinary Tribunal for determination and disposal.

Well, if everyone is interested in a fair hearing of this complaint, they should refrain from public comment, either praising or critisising Findlay for what he said, but I think Deane & Massie's articles should at least, be entered into the Faculty's Disciplinary Hearing on this case - to ensure fairness for all. After all, usually the lawyer who is the subject of the complaint, quotes any press coverage or comments a client makes ... so why not be thorough and include what appears to be articles sympathising with Mr Findlay.

So we are back to the point - On orders from the legal profession, it's ok for the press to report on stories which praise members of the legal profession in client complaints, but they can't report cases where the client has brought the complaint to the attention of the press.

Just what is that all about, Campbell ? Isn't that restriction of Free Speech for us poor members of the public when we are up against your colleagues ? or is it a policy straight out of Drumsheugh Gardens designed to minimise press coverage on stories like lawyers who go out to rape children ?

The following articles from the Scotsman, and lastly from the Herald on the Sheridan case, for your reading.

Have you heard the one about freedom of speech?MEDIA LAWCAMPBELL DEANE

ODD-one-out round. Donald Findlay QC, Chief Constable John Vine, Gerald Ratner and the Times's political editor, Angus Macleod. The answer is that, while the first three have got into hot water for making jokes, the latter had a joke told about him without any consequences.

Last year at the Perth Bar Association dinner, Vine, a former president of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, took the fateful decision to tell the audience a joke about bombs. It was the one about al-Qaeda fathers comparing notes about the careers of their suicide bomber sons with the punchline "Ah, kids, they blow up so quickly these days".

Gerald Ratner effectively killed his own jewellery company when he joked in a speech that one of his firm's products was "total crap", and boasted that some of its earrings were "cheaper than a prawn sandwich" and unlikely to last as long. The speech wiped an estimated £500m from the value of the company.

And of course Donald Findlay is back in the headlines for, among other things, telling a joke at a private function. He was reported to have said: "It's very smoky in here, has another f***ing Pope died?" Following complaints, the Faculty of Advocates agreed he was guilty of professional misconduct. It is understood Findlay was given the option of "putting his hands up" and paying a relatively modest fine, but flatly refused. He now faces prosecution at a formal disciplinary tribunal.

I have to say I have an element of sympathy for Findlay. As any after-dinner speaker will confirm, you need to gauge your audience. In both Ratner's and Vine's cases a room full of lawyers and businessmen were not the ideal. But Findlay was speaking to 140 Rangers supporters from the Loyalist stronghold of Larne, who had paid £22 each for the privilege of hearing him talk. They were there to be entertained by a lawyer with the gift of the gab. Arguably the basis of freedom of expression is such that it should never be restricted. Just because some people are offended should not mean that the joke should remain silent. And was anyone who heard the joke first-hand offended?

Findlay will argue that when he does after-dinner speaking he adopts an entirely different persona. He is not Donald Findlay QC, and surely the two can be separated? If not, then there would be an argument that the Faculty are discriminating against him having another job as an entertainer.

But I have the solution for Findlay's troubles. Give up the after-dinner speaking and get yourself a diary column in a newspaper. You see, last week Lord McPhail kicked out an action brought by award-winning journalist Angus Macleod, who had been described in a diary item as an inventor and compared to Alexander Graham Bell. While you can accuse a journalist of many things, that is a step too far.

McPhail held that the diary had been written for the reader's entertainment, and had contained elements of fantasy. So for all diarists out there, we now have the imperial standard measure of how to defame a judge. Write five pieces with elements of fantasy and then an item about a named judge being biased. I am sure those on the bench will agree it is just banter, after all.

GEORGE Orwell was interested in jokes, even if not making many himself. "It is interesting," he wrote, "to compare the 'Jew joke' with that other standby of the music halls, the 'Scotch joke', which superficially it resembles ... in general, the Jew is credited merely with cunning and avarice while the Scotsman is credited with physical hardihood as well. This is seen, for example in the story of the Jew and the Scotsman who go together to a meeting which has been advertised as free.

"Unexpectedly there is a collection, and to avoid this the Jew faints and the Scotsman carries him out. It would seem vaguely wrong if it were the other way about."

Setting aside the fact that the best Jew jokes have usually been told by Jews, just as the best Aberdeen ones have been told by Aberdonians, and nobody did more than comics such as Harry Lauder, Will Fyffe and Chic Murray - "a true Scotsman keeps the Sabbath, and anything else he can get his hands on" - to fix the stereotype of us as mean and grasping, one finds oneself, quite often, wondering just what it is still permissible to mock.

The distinguished QC, Donald Findlay, for instance, is in trouble again - hauled up before a disciplinary committee of his colleagues at the Faculty of Advocates, it seems - because he told a joke about the Pope at a dinner in Northern Ireland. It wasn't much of a joke, going apparently something like this: "It's awful smokey in here - has another ******* Pope died?"

Not terribly funny, but harmless enough, you might think, and probably went down quite well with most of his audience, consisting of either - I'm not quite clear on this point - members of a Rangers Supporters Club or the Orange Order. (No doubt there is some overlap anyway.) After all, people have been making jokes about His Holiness for centuries, probably since long before the Reformation. "Why does the Pope wear underpants in his bath?", small boys used to ask with a snigger. No doubt you can supply the answer.

Every schoolboy when I was young had an extensive repertory of jokes which began: "There was a Scotsman, an Irishman and an Englishman ..."

Few were very funny, I daresay; all followed the same pattern. The Englishman was sure of himself but stupid, the Irishman clever but silly, the Scotsman had the answer.

No doubt such jokes took a different form the other side of the Border, or across the Irish Sea. They were a variant of a joke I liked about the Greek, the Jew and the Armenian who paid a visit to a church or museum. "That was a really beautiful ruby," said the Greek afterwards, "I wish I had taken it." "Ah," said the Jew, "you wish that? I've got it." "You had it," said the Armenian.

In all cultures, too, there have been jokes about people deemed inferior. So we had the Irish joke, as in "an Irish dog was chewing a bone when its master called and it got up and hobbled away on three legs".

In Ireland itself the Irish joke is told - used to be told? -about Kerrymen; in the United States about Poles, in the old South Africa about a Boer farmer, a simpleton called van der Merwe.

For instance, van der Merwe goes to the cinema three days in succession to see the same film. Asked why, he explains that there's this chap who tries to leap on to his horse and falls off the other side; he wants to see if he's so stupid he'll do it again. All such jokes are in a way expressions of solidarity, of a shared culture; they are intended, if not consciously, to be reassuring.

Sometimes - as in the Aberdonian joke "two taxis crashed in front of His Majesty's Theatre and 15 people were taken to hospital" - they are exercises in self-deprecation, which are at the same time expressions of a sense of one's own superiority.

In the case of the Scots or Aberdonian joke told by a Scot or Aberdonian, or the Jew joke told by a Jew, the sense of superiority is demonstrated by the ability to laugh at oneself.

Otherwise, there is usually an element of affection in the mockery. True anti-Semites don't tell Jew jokes; they are too busy hating them. There were no Jew jokes in Nazi Germany.

Now, in our excessively sensitive time ethnic and sectarian jokes are frowned on. Indeed, they're forbidden. Even mild ones, such as Mr Findlay's, can get you into trouble, in his case because it seems to be aimed at all Roman Catholics and their reverence for the Pope, rather than at His Holiness himself.

But, of course, we still need jokes, laughter being essential to us. So what can you joke about? At what or whom may jokes be permissibly directed? Certain categories - Muslims and gays, for instance - are ruled out. So also, obviously, are the disabled and afflicted. Such jokes are regarded as either dangerous or in poor taste.

However, as an example of the way what is considered bad taste changes, the Royal Family is now regarded as fair game. So, very evidently, are politicians.

Since Spitting Image set the example, so-called alternative comedians have delighted in mocking individual politicians. In the Eighties, they could say what they liked about Margaret Thatcher. Now Tony Blair and George Bush are regularly pilloried, portrayed as buffoons and villains.

Is this healthier? Many will say it is because the objects of these jokes and insults are powerful. They may be right, but what is also clear is that such jokes, aimed at individuals rather than categories, are also crueller.

Jokes about categories of people are beyond the pale, even though categories are abstractions which can't be hurt. Jokes about individuals are deemed OK, even though individuals feel pain and bleed.

Political correctness, which was intended to make life pleasanter by forbidding stigmatisation has, paradoxically, resulted in a nastier form of humour. Very rum.

Witness not allowed to see results of Sheridan investigationTOM GORDON, Scottish Political Correspondent January 04 2007

A witness in the Tommy Sheridan defamation trial, who complained after it was wrongly implied in court she had a criminal record, has been told she cannot see the results of the Law Society's investigation into the matter.

Anne Colvin, a businesswoman who claimed to have seen the politician having sex with a prostitute, was wrongly accused by Mr Sheridan's junior counsel, advocate Graeme Henderson, of having received an 18-month sentence for credit card fraud.

It has now emerged that Mr Sheridan has refused to waive his right to confidentiality with his solicitor in the case, thereby blocking efforts by Ms Colvin to find out more on the incident.

After the trial last August, Ms Colvin complained to the Law Society about Campbell Deane, Mr Sheridan's solicitor, who would normally have instructed Mr Henderson's questioning.

She expected to discover the source of the claim against her, but was told that, as she was not Mr Deane's client, she could not see his explanation of events or the results of the investigation.

Ms Colvin asked Mr Sheridan to waive confidentiality to allow her to see the paperwork, but he refused.

She said: "I would ask Mr Sheridan to reconsider and waive confidentiality. It would also clear his name. If he did not suggest the question to Mr Henderson then he has nothing to worry about."

Martha Rafferty, Ms Colvin's solicitor said: "Honesty goes to the heart of any defamation case and she thought this was a clear attempt to besmirch her character.

"Having lodged a complaint with the Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society, she is still none the wiser why the question was asked, and considers this most unsatisfactory."

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Despite giving us the Legal Profession & Legal Aid (Scotland) Bill, which brings independent regulation to Scotland's entirely corrupt legal profession, the Scottish Executive put up a fight against an FOI request made by Mr Bill Alexander for the release of correspondence & material surrounding the failure to enact parts of legislation sitting on the statute books which would have opened up the courts to those other than solicitors & clients.

The Executive duly thought the release of such information, was an appalling idea .. appalling, since the material in question, being correspondence between Ministers, elements of the legal profession, and the governing body of Scottish lawyers - the Law Society of Scotland, could give the impression to everyone, that there was a collusion going on for years between the Executive & the lawyers to keep everyone else out of court and maintain a monopoly on legal services - which is in fact, what happened.

If it had been a member of the public trying to get legal representation to break loose a disclosure of papers relating to the restriction of legal markets, they wouldn't even have been able to secure legal representation - so Mr Alexander, the Herald newspaper, and the rest of us are lucky Mr Dunion was there to do it for us.

No such difficulty for the Scottish Executive though - the legal profession provided their best to defeat the FOI disclosure request (at top fees too no doubt), but m'luds felt a bit honest yesterday and found in favour, again, of FOI.

I wonder how much Richard Keen & his team cost the Executive for this ?

Bill Alexander also has a related petition into the Scottish Parliament, which can be viewed at this link : Petition PE1021

Petition by Bill Alexander calling for the Scottish Parliament to investigate (i) the availability of solicitors prepared to act against other solicitors in cases of negligence or inadequate service; (ii) the role of the Law Society in such cases; and (iii) the impact, both physical and financial, of such cases on the complainer.

Rumours seem to indicate today, the legal profession demanded the Scottish Executive fight the case, as the lads at Drumsheugh Gardens, and those over at the Faculty of Advocates, definitely did not want any evidence revealed which may indicate a legal profession stitch up over legal services & restriction of business markets.

A well placed source who contacted me earlier this morning, informed me the Law Society had also tried to insist any correspondence from itself to the Executive should be exempt from the FOI request, as the Law Society of Scotland has an exemption from FOI !

I doubt Kevin Dunion, the FOI Commissioner will be having anything of that one though .. but only time will tell on what is published ... and if there is anything missing in the trail of correspondence, ministerial meetings with the bosses & leading [crooks] lights of the legal profession .. I'm sure it will be down to some politicians & leading crooks of the legal profession getting together to protect their own fiddles of the law.

There seems to be no doubt then, the present Scottish Executive, and it's previous incarnation, the Scottish Office, colluded with the legal profession to form an unofficial policy of restricting access to the courts & maintaining the monopoly of rights to legal representation by forcing the public to use members of the Law Society of Scotland & Faculty of Advocates.

More importantly though, as can be seen by Mr Alexander's petition to the Scottish Parliament, there is also little doubt among critics & campaigners against the decades of injustice practiced by the Law Society against members of the public, that the Executive has assisted the Law Society's clearly prejudicial policy of obstructing & denying legal representation to any client trying to raise a claim of negligence against a Scottish solicitor.

Maybe we should be asking which politicians got cheap deals on house & land purchases & other legal services, for keeping these laws from being enacted ... I'm sure there are a few trees to be shaken on that one .. all things being corrupt, that is.

Apparently, the Law Society are "looking for me to give me a good seeing to" .. Well, I've heard nothing yet, but if any threatening letter comes in, of course, I will publish it .. and if there's any polonium in my sushi, I will be calling the Met !

Again, if the threatening letter arrives, I will publish of course .. but I can't see how there can be any denials .. after all, what I wrote is all true .. and there's quite a bit more scandal to go with it !

Anyway, read on for today's Herald report on Mr Alexander's FOI case - and remember to support Petition PE1021 at the Scottish Parliament.

I have my own petition also going in over some related matters .. which I will report to you in due course.

The Scottish Executive has failed with a landmark bid to block the release of highly sensitive documents explaining why Scotland's "closed shop" for legal services has never been opened up to competition.

A Court of Session ruling yesterday should force the disclosure of correspondence on the subject between senior politicians, lawyers and officials.

They include the late First Minister Donald Dewar, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and former Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg.

In a 26-page ruling, the Lord President, Lord Hamilton, together with Lord Nimmo Smith and Sir David Edward, dismissed the executive's arguments that certain documents were exempted from disclosure under the freedom of information legislation.

They made the same ruling in a second case in which the executive refused to disclose documents, requested by The Herald, concerning plans to dump waste in a protected Scottish quarry.

Both cases are a triumph for the Scottish information commissioner Kevin Dunion, who had ordered ministers to publish the documents.

Mr Dunion welcomed the decision, saying: "This is an important judgment in my favour. The court has agreed it was wrong of the executive to conclude that it would be harmful to release information which it characterised as belonging to a class or type - for example, advice to ministers - without regard to the content of that information. I have consistently maintained this is not what parliament intended."

The decision is also a victory for Bill Alexander, a longstanding campaigner for wider consumer access to legal services. Last year, Mr Alexander used freedom of information legislation to seek disclosure of ministerial correspondence and memoranda from the past decade concerning the enduring ban on people other than solicitors and advocates being paid to represent clients in the Scottish courts.

"I am pleased the law has been clarified. Hopefully, everyone can now move forward in getting greater access to justice for the people of Scotland," he said.

SCOTTISH ministers yesterday failed in the country's highest court to prevent the release of documents which had been sought under the Freedom of Information Act.

In two cases heard in the Court of Session, rulings against ministers by Kevin Dunion, the Scottish Information Commissioner, were upheld.

The cases involved information on why legislation passed in 1990, designed to promote competition in the provision of legal services, had not been brought into effect, and why ministers had decided in 2004 not to "call in" a planning application for a waste disposal and ecological conservation area at Treane Quarry, north Ayrshire.

The Scottish Information Commissioner today (24 January 2007) welcomed a landmark Court of Session ruling which upheld his decisions in relation to two appeals brought by the Scottish Executive under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).

The ruling concerned two separate decisions issued by the Commissioner, in which he found that the Executive had acted incorrectly in withholding specific information from release. One case involved documents concerning legislation passed over 15 years ago, part of which the Executive had still not carried into effect in Scotland. Sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, if implemented, would allow professionals, other than advocates and solicitors, rights to conduct litigation on behalf of members of the public, as well as rights of audience in the courts.

In bringing its appeals to the Court, the Executive argued that the Commissioner had wrongly interpreted FOISA when considering the content of withheld documents on an individual basis. The Executive argued that certain types, or “classes”, of documents should automatically fall within the scope of particular FOISA exemptions.

Following its consideration of the case, the Court rejected the arguments put forward by the Executive. In reaching this conclusion, the Court described the “class” arguments put forward by the Executive as “ill-founded”, and concluded that the Commissioner’s methodology of considering the specific content of individual documents, and the potential impact of release, was correct and appropriate. A number of other criticisms made by the Executive were also rejected by the court. As a result, the Court refused both of the Executive’s appeals.

Kevin Dunion, the Scottish Information Commissioner, said:

“This is an important judgement in my favour. The Court has agreed that it was wrong of the Executive to conclude that it would be harmful to release information which it characterised as belonging to a class or type, e.g. advice to Ministers, without regard to the content of that information. I have consistently maintained this is not what Parliament intended and is not what the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act allows. In my view, the effect of the release of such information can only be gauged by considering the content. I am pleased that the judgement clearly supports my position.”

The Commissioner added:

“At the heart of these cases is whether the public is given access to information which allows them to understand why decisions have been arrived at. With regard to the Law Reform Act, I took the view that a democratic society is entitled to expect that legislation passed by its elected representatives in Parliament will be brought into force unless there are good reasons for not doing so, and citizens are entitled to know those reasons unless there is a greater public interest in keeping them secret.”

Ends

For further information contact Claire Sigsworth or Paul Mutch on 01334 464610, out of hours, 07976 511752

The Commissioner's Decisions to which the Court of Session's Opinion relates are:

Decision 057/2005 – Mr William Alexander and the Scottish Executive

• Mr Alexander requested information relating to the commencement of sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) ( Scotland ) Act 1990. Sections 25 to 29 of this Act, which have yet to be implemented, set out arrangements which would ensure greater competition in the provision of legal services in Scotland .

• The Scottish Executive refused the request, arguing that most of the information either related to the formulation of policy or would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs, and was therefore exempt from release under FOISA.

• The Commissioner found, following consideration of the content of each document, that, while much of the information did indeed fall within the scope of an exemption, other information did not, and should therefore be released. The Commissioner also found that some information, while falling within the scope of an exemption, should be released in the public interest.

• Mr Elstone and Mr Williams separately made similar requests for documentation relating to a decision taken by the Scottish Ministers not to “call in” a planning application for Trearne Quarry, North Ayrshire. If “called in”, North Ayrshire Council would have been required to refer the application to the Scottish Ministers for decision.

• The Scottish Executive refused both of these requests, arguing that release would prejudice the effective conduction of public affairs.

• Given the similarity of the cases, the Commissioner issued a single Decision which addressed both requests. The Commissioner found, following the consideration of individual documents, that while some had been withheld correctly, others did not fall within the scope of any exemption and were appropriate for release.

• The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) provides a statutory right of access to all information held by Scottish public authorities. This right came into effect on 1 January 2005.• Around 10,000 public authorities in Scotland are covered by FOISA. They include the Scottish Parliament and Executive, police forces, the NHS, local authorities, education institutions, and publicly owned companies.• Information can only be withheld by a public authority if it falls under one of the exemptions listed in FOISA. If an individual believes an authority is wrong to withhold information, they ultimately have a right of appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner, who can require release.• The parties to any case have the right to appeal against the Commissioner’s decision to the Court of Session on a point of law only.

The Scottish Information Commissioner

• Kevin Dunion the Scottish Information Commissioner is a fully independent public official, appointed by the Queen on the nomination of the Scottish Parliament.• His duties and powers are to ensure that people get the information from Scottish public authorities to which they are entitled.• His role actively promotes and enforces compliance with FOISA.

These revelations have left the Scottish Executive somewhat embarrassed, and unwilling to release much information on exactly how extensive these companies ties to Government are ... and pose new questions on why the Executive has stood by for so long while clients claims against crooked lawyers & other crooked professionals insurance policies have failed against a tide of corruption in the handling of such cases by professional regulatory bodies & insurers.

The Question : Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP):To ask the Scottish Executive what contracts and arrangements for the provision of insurance services it holds with (a) Royal and Sun Alliance and (b) Marsh UK.

The Answer :(S2W-30261)

Mr Tom McCabe:The Scottish Executive does not hold a central record of contracts and arrangements for the provision of insurance services.

The Executive’s finance system (which covers core Executive departments and many Executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies) shows that some payments have been made to Royal Sun Alliance and Marsh UK. However, details of the contracts and arrangements which relate to those payments could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

As a general rule commercial insurance would only be justified in constituent parts of the Scottish Administration if the cost of claims, including in-house and contracted-out administration costs, was calculated as likely to exceed the cost of insurance premiums. However, in certain circumstancesthere are special factors which may justify commercial insurance being taken out.

So, it would appear from Tom McCabe's response, the Scottish Executive are incompetent at keeping track of public expenditure .. but that's definitely not the case here, because as we all know full well, when it comes to details involving companies who share business & lobbying interests with the professions - particularly the legal profession, the truth, is never easy to determine.

Further enquiries by Mr Stewart Mackenzie, a constituent of John Swinney MSP, have now revealed the amounts of public money paid by the Scottish Executive to Marsh & Royal & Sun Alliance PLC in the last 12 months, are in the area of : £157,000 to Marsh and £16,000 to Royal Sun Alliance.

While the Scottish Executive are definitely not forthcoming in terms of detail on just which Departments or which members of staff are insured by Royal & Sun Alliance & Marsh UK .. certain Scottish Executive Ministerial appointees such as the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman, who is responsible for investigating complaints against the Law Society of Scotland, is known to be covered by these same insurance companies, which also insure lawyers against negligence claims from client complaints ... and this certainly leaves open charges of a clear conflict of interest when an Ombudsman to an industry, is insured by the same insurers. Little wonder then, the Executive are cagey about revealing the information.

These insurance arrangements have thought to have been in existence for some time, although in the late 1990's, Civil Servants at the Scottish Office claimed in similar inquries made at the time, that the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman had no insurance for professional negligence of the type which has now been revealed to be the case ...

It seems to be a foregone conclusion then, that the Scottish Executive's Justice Department, and indeed, most Departments, including Departmental Ministers, are probably insured under these same insurance arrangements, for just about everything under the sun, to protect against any eventuality of liability .. but it is thought many more parts of Scottish Government, including the Police, Health, & other public services, right down to Local Government, have most probably fell under the spell of such insurance arrangements linked to 'questionable companies' which the Executive seem determined to keep secret.

McCabe is purposely evasive in his response, not giving any detail away at all .. probably because as I know full well, the tentacles of these insurance firms are quite extensive throughout Government & the public sector. To quote McCabe directly :

"As a general rule commercial insurance would only be justified in constituent parts of the Scottish Administration if the cost of claims, including in-house and contracted-out administration costs, was calculated as likely to exceed the cost of insurance premiums. However, in certain circumstances there are special factors which may justify commercial insurance being taken out."

Let's have a few examples of this to enlighten the public ...

If a Chief Constable is sued by a member of the public for negligence, or any other matter .. the CC is generally insured against such a claim ... so, is it RSA & Marsh UK again ? .. or have the claims been farmed out to some other organisation to keep people from linking up the dots and drawing conclusions of giant conflicts of interest ... when in such a case, the lawyers who would be pursuing the Chief Constable for a client, would be insured by the same insurers.

Try this one for size ... A Doctor is negligent, and allows your family member to die. You engage lawyers to sue the Doctor & the local Health Authority for negligence .. but unbeknown to you, your lawyer is insured by the same insurers, who insure the Health Authority, and possibly even the Doctor ... How about that ? Well, it happens .. and I can attest to that one myself, from my experience with crooked lawyer Michael Robson in the case of the death of my mother at Borders General Hospital.

Housing Associations are also a favourite of Marsh UK it seems, with perhaps the RSA not far behind ? ... I have read of cases where tenants have tried to make claims of negligence, or other kinds of damages claims against their Housing Association landlords, and had the most horrible time of it, with every dirty trick used against them, from even filing false information with Police, the Benefits Agency & other organisations in an attempt to knock their claim out of court, but all the while, the same insurers insure the tenant's lawyer.

Same goes for Scotland's other infamously crooked body - the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, whose 'CA" (Chartered Accountant) members can be as crooked & criminal as they like - a good example of this being the crooked Borders accountant Norman Howitt who ripped my father's estate off and stole my mother's pension & Bank books for himself ... ICAS were so secretive on their insurance arrangements for professional negligence, they refused to identify the company responsible (I was later told by a Journalist it was Marsh & RSA again) .. and the carefully worded ICAS report into Howitt avoided any mention of negligence .. just as what happens with Law Society reports into crooked lawyers.

The same applies for many other public services, and also the commercial sector, as Marsh Inc & the Royal & Sun Alliance claim themselves to be one of the biggest providers of insurance cover for professional indemnity to virtually every walk of life .. and particularly the financial sector .. where all of those who have been trying to make negligence or other kinds of claims against Banks & other financial institutions, may have failed to realise, the same insurers who insured the Bank, also insured their lawyer .. who perhaps .. failed to progress the case very much .. or fail to win such a settlement as what should have been awarded ...

However, some say there may be much more to this secrecy than just the Executive wanting to keep it's insurance arrangements secret just because they link up Government to the same crooked insurance companies which have prevented thousands of cases from ever getting near the courts, through using the most dirty tricks possible & prevaricating the public in negligence claims against the likes of crooked lawyers, while the Scottish Executive stood by, knowing all the time the reasons these cases would never be successful.

Not to mention another lurking factor in this .. well .. these same companies are known for making political donations in the USA .. obviously to the party which best represents their business interests .. and as we have seen over the years, with the complex arrangements of donations to political parties, which may well have brought business in and held onto established markets .. certainly such as the legal & financial sectors. Could it be perhaps, that New Labour have had a few donations from the insurers to maintain their business interests ? ... It may be so.

So, could this be the holy grail of links between the likes of crooked lawyers & our Scottish Executive, which have prevented for so long members of the public, such as myself and many many others, from getting anywhere near a court to make a negligence claim ? Could this be one of the main reasons that the Law Society of Scotland has been allowed to fiddle it's way through tens of thousands of client complaints against crooked lawyers over the years .. while the Executive and many politicians have stood by and done nothing ?

I think it may well be the case that we are looking at one of the major reasons why many claims against the likes of crooked lawyers, negligent medical staff, the Police, Courts, and all sorts of so-called professions, Government Departments, etc , have failed over the years - because the Government has been using the same insurance services to defend themselves against such claims. Quite a simple answer there .. and quite realistic.

One could almost call this cosy arrangement of using the same insurers a 'partnership against the public' .. certainly at the very least, it shows a gigantic conflict of interest when it comes to members of the public trying to get justice in their cases against those referred to above .. all the while, our legislators are using the same insurance services .. and offer us no help at all in cases where help is certainly required.

Time for this 'partnership against the public' to be ended ... we don't need the same corrupt financial & insurance companies insuring the professions and Government, do we ? No wonder no one can progress their claims to court .. everyone from the lawyers we use, to the Court staff, to the Judge, to the Government, seems to be insured by the same cartels of insurance companies.

It's time for an investigation into why this has gone on for so long ... and time for those in Government to admit their guilt in standing by for so long, while the public have begged for help and received none against the likes of crooked lawyers & other crooked professionals ..

How about also asking why the Government has been paying public money to a knowingly corrupt insurance company for so long ? .. and not bothered to investigate it's insurance practices in the UK .. when so many reports of corruption have been made by members of the public in dealings with these companies and claims against their insured clients ...

Thursday, January 11, 2007

The so-called 'strike' by Scotland's legal profession over the alleged lack of payments of legal aid in the Fixed Fees system, seems to have been rubbished by research from the Law Society of Scotland itself, throwing into question the validity of the claims of local Bar Associations of impoverished Solicitors having to boycott everything from family law cases to Criminal cases, .. just to get that wee bit more legal aid into their pockets.

However, today in the Scotsman newspaper, we have the legal profession spinning out an 'unpublished report' - which was actually conducted under their own auspices by Cyrus Tata & Professor Frank Stephens of Manchester University .. showing the Legal Aid reforms announced by the Scottish Executive back in 1999 have failed to stem the rise of legal aid payments to lawyers.

Wait a second though ... didn't lawyers up and down Scotland only a couple of months ago claim they weren't getting enough money .... so they had to strike & boycott legal cases to gain increased legal aid payments ?

Well, as of this morning so far, the Law Society of Scotland haven't joined in the fun with a press release of it's own on the shrill cries of Executive bury's evidence of legal aid reform failure. That in itself, is unusual, as the Law Society usually fire out a Press Release to accompany whatever story they wished published for the next day, unless of course, they don't want it to look as if it's been managed that way .. which incidentally, it does.

So, Cyrus Tata and Frank Stephens report in their findings that when fixed fees were introduced, £30 million was being spent a year on summary legal aid in sheriff courts. Following the introduction of fee-capping, that fell to £27 million. But by 2002, the bill had increased to £32 million with an extra 10,000 cases being funded by legal aid.

How does this square with the recent claims by lawyers they were impoverished and had to strike, boycotting a range of civil law & criminal law cases to gain increases in fixed fees from the Executive - which of course they did - after their strike.

Lawyers even went off to form a new national Bar Association on the pretext the Law Society wasn't up to the job of lobbying for their interests Hundreds to join new lawyers' union - with regard to legal aid payments & the loss of regulating (fiddling) complaints against their colleagues and up & down Scotland, local Bar Associations organised strikes & boycotts of cases, causing even delays to criminal trials of the likes of sex offenders, .. all because lawyers were getting paid more legal aid ?

Well, thanks for clearing that one up, Mr Tata & Mr Stephens. The claims in the strike were obviously bogus. Lawyers were getting more money all the time, & claiming for things they weren't claiming for before .. we never heard anything of that in the legal profession's protests & briefings on the alleged lack of legal aid payments.

This time certainly, I don't think the blame lies with the Scottish Executive at all on the allegations of burying the evidence - this is Law Society sponsored research - that's why it appeared in the Journal of the Law Society - their own publication. Why didn't the Law Society do their usual open press briefings, releases & multiple phone calls to all the newspapers to ensure the story was going in ?

If we want the Executive to publish every little bit of research into the legal profession, maybe we should expect stories appearing on the Executive site like this Daily Record expose on lawyers bribing clients to fill out legal aid forms: BUNG TO RIGHTS .. which is more common than some would have the public believe ..

For that matter, does the Executive have to publish all the Law Society's paid opinions such as the one of FibDem peer Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC who concluded it would be a breach of lawyers human rights to have complaints against lawyers independently regulated so they basically couldn't continue to fiddle client complaints against their colleagues ? ..... I think we don't need to hear propaganda from the legal profession coming straight out of the Executive.

Such a pity the Scotsman didn't put a link in the story to the summary of Tata & Stephen's report published by the Executive on 7th December, rather than that long tedious description of where it lies in some 'sandwiched state'... which is obviously just for effect .. after all .. links to You Tube videos on vandalism in the Capital & reports on everything from health to the McKie case, have made it to the Scotsman website .. why not be a little more consistent .. or is it just because the legal profession says so, this story appears.

With all respect to Kenny MaCaskill & the rest at Holyrood, I wish he was more tuned into the way the legal profession handles the media & stories like this, although it is ironic the 'unpublished' research, which the Law Society actually did publish itself, kills off the legal profession's own protests of lack of legal aid .... How about someone point that one out please ? .. or is it even too much of an effort to state the obvious these days.

I'll be kind and link to the Journal of the Law Society's published version of this 'unpublished research'. See it here : Fixed payments: a real impact?

As for me, well, I like my sandwiches with plenty bacon, or even a salad for that healthy touch.. but I never .. NEVER .. bury my sandwiches between sandwiches !

* Unpublished report shows legal-aid reforms have been unsuccessful* Lawyers now making claims where previously they would not have* Executive accused of 'burying bad news' in failure to publish

Key quote"We are in danger of seeing the Executive covering up and the legal-aid board simply burgeoning as a bureaucracy, not as a service-provider. The whole legal-aid system is in meltdown." - KENNY MACASKILL, SNP

Story in full LEGAL-AID reforms aimed at saving millions of pounds have been a failure and the Scottish Executive has been accused of concealing damning evidence.

The Scotsman has learned that a study completed two years ago - which has yet to be published - found that fixed fees for lawyers have failed to deliver an anticipated £10 million cut in Scotland's legal-aid bill.

The research concludes that fee-capping for summary criminal work, introduced in 1999, may in fact have increased the overall legal-aid bill by encouraging lawyers to submit thousands more claims.

The findings have led to claims of a "meltdown" in the legal-aid system, which last year cost taxpayers £148 million.

And the failure to publish the research has also prompted fresh accusations that ministers and senior civil servants are suppressing information.

A spokesman for the Executive said the research was being held "for a variety of factors", but was unable to explain what these were. However, he said researchers had been given permission to present their findings at conferences and in journals.

He also said that a brief, three-page summary of the report's findings was posted on the Executive's website last month.

Fixed fees of £300 for cases in the district court and £500 for those in the sheriff courts were introduced to cut costs by speeding up the system.

Writing about their research in the latest issue of the Law Society Journal, Cyrus Tata and Frank Stephens, from Strathclyde and Manchester universities, said that prior to fixed fees, lawyers often did not bother to claim for all advice and assistance given, instead only billing for main cases.

But they found that after the fees were introduced, lawyers were far more meticulous in their billing, making up shortfalls from individual cases by submitting more claims.

When fixed fees were introduced, £30 million was being spent a year on summary legal aid in sheriff courts. Following the introduction of fee-capping, that fell to £27 million. But by 2002, the bill had increased to £32 million with an extra 10,000 cases being funded by legal aid.

Kenny MacAskill, the SNP's justice spokesman, said the Executive's failure to release the report was "utterly unacceptable".

He added: "We are in danger of seeing the Executive covering up and the legal-aid board simply burgeoning as a bureaucracy, not as a service-provider. The whole legal-aid system is in meltdown."

"They have sat on this report for 18 months, putting a sledgehammer through their claims that this would be an open, accountable and transparent government."

A spokesman for the Executive said allowing researchers to present their findings "demonstrates our willingness to have the findings in the public domain". He added: "We are hoping to publish the full report very soon."

BURYING BAD NEWS?

A SUMMARY of Cyrus Tata's and Frank Stephens' findings was posted on the Scottish Executive website on 7 December.

The paper boils down to three short pages, 14 months of research, involving analysis of legal-aid board data over five years and scores of interviews with solicitors.

No press release was issued to announce the release of the long-awaited findings, which have been kept under wraps for nearly two years. The document was instead posted among hundreds of other papers in the website's "publications" section, which can be entered by clicking on a link on the home page.

It can be found sandwiched between the chief fire and rescue service inspector's annual report, and a justice department circular on "the implementation of the integrated case management process from 1 June, 2006".

Sunday, January 07, 2007

From the emails & posts I have received to my last article, on how lawyers use the Police against clients who complain against them, it seems the practice is certainly more common than even I could have imagined. I am trying to get through all your emails on this issue, so please bear with me.

There seems to be a growing adversarial feeling from the legal profession that if all else fails to silence a cantankerous client' a targeted campaign against a complainer, or indeed anyone who challenges the legal profession's position is the only solution .. and it seems anything goes when it comes to targeting a complaining client .. even .. violence. What also seems clear is, when a lawyer is in trouble, it's not only the legal profession which steps in to defend them .. their relatives also lend a 'helping hand'.

Today, I ask : How do the family members of a crooked lawyer react when their lawyer relatives are faced with client complaints such as embezzlement, theft, service or conduct complaints or are perhaps, even accused of crimes ?

Well, I have to say, in my own experience of such cases, usually the family of the lawyer either [rarely] go silent, or [more commonly] support their accused relative.

Even worse awaits the complainer in these circumstances, as in some cases reported to me, and admittedly from my own experience, a lawyer's family will go out and attack the client & their family, maybe spread some lies, gossip, give the odd false tip to the Police ... that kind of thing.

Certainly, from my own unpleasant experience with crooked Borders solicitor Drew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso .. I know this to be true .. his family certainly spread plenty lies about me throughout the Borders, in an effort to get their dearly beloved crooked Drew off the hook .. and the same was true of crooked Borders accountant Norman Howitt of Welch & Co Accountants, Hawick & Galashiels ... his family all set out to support their wee crook Norman .. who, like Drew Penman, used all his contacts in the Borders to make my life & my family's life a misery. And they succeeded.

Yes .. filing false tips with the local Police, phoning round the local Banks to see if I did business with them .. spreading lies, inciting people to 'have-a-go' at me .. was all par for the course for these two famous crooks & their families... and certainly, with the misery I experienced from when I made my complaint to the Law Society of Scotland against Drew Penman - I can sympathise with anyone who has gone through the same .

You know what ? It's common. Common in many complaints - and often used as an excuse by the Law Society of Scotland to let the crooked lawyer off the hook ... because the crooked lawyer was doing it for his own family ... robbing you .. to support his own family .. and because he was doing it to support his own family, and lavish lifestyle, why should he be punished just because he ruined a client - because a solicitor's family takes priority over a client's family - so Law Society policy dictates.

It's common because nothing has really been done about it .. and with many solicitors appearing before Complaints Committees and using issues regarding their own family to shield them from significant complaints, all are in agreement that when it comes to a solicitor's family - they take priority over a client's family.The mere mention of anything related to a solicitor's family at a Complaints Committee hearing - whether it's true or not, is usually enough to get them off the hook, from even, say .. a complaint where a lawyer has embezzled £500,000.

Many of the stories put forward by lawyers in defence of their actions, seem to be completely false .. but the Complaints Committee members never think (or are either too stupid or too much in the back pocket of the Law Society) to check out the stories put to them by a crooked lawyer .. such as a case which was brought to my attention where a crooked lawyer claimed... "Oh please, I only took the £400,000 to pay for my son's ill health, and anyway, the client is just a piece of crap, I studied so long & so hard for so many years at University, so you should find me not guilty of what I did" .. and, yes, you guessed it - the Complaints Committee let him off the hook and dismissed the complaint. Another interesting case I heard over the past few days related to a lawyer claiming his son had cancer and wasn't expected to live (the stress of it all had caused the lawyer to fiddle several client accounts & see that legal colleagues got preferential deals on clients property sales (his colleagues bought the houses of clients on the cheap) ... the lawyer in question though, didn't have a son .. he had a daughter .. and no one on the Complaints Committee bothered to check.

Here's an example from my own case on what goes on at Complaints Committees :

You can see from the above Scotsman article, Law Society Complaints Committees are quite corrupt in terms of the evidence they allow to be thrown against clients by accused lawyers & their representatives. Virtually anything goes .. there are no normal rules of substantiating evidence .. claims can be made by crooked lawyers & their allies, however spurious or ridiculous they may sound, and Complaints Committees accept them against anything the complaier can provide .. even running counter to material evidence & external witnesses.

However, what generally goes unreported is that after a complaint has been made by a client against a lawyer, invariably, the family & relatives of the lawyer facing the complaint, turn their attack on the client and their family .. and as has been demonstrated over the years, these attacks by family members of crooked lawyers have become increasingly violent.

The Law Society of Scotland are well aware of these kinds of incidents of course, and it seems solicitors have the blessing of their profession to carry on in this way as nothing is done to curb such behaviour. The Crown Office, interestingly, refuses to admit collating any statistics on issues involving lawyers - even, it seems, criminal charges .. a convenience, but there are private admissions that public reports against lawyers conduct are widespread.

A thorny issue to tackle, said one journalist to me a few days ago .. but the fact is that the family of crooked lawyers go all out to get their relative off the hook from even the most serious charges - even criminal charges ... and even telling lies to the Police, providing alibis to child abusing lawyer relatives seems to come quite easy to the family members of accused crooked lawyers. Imagine that .. a close relative giving the cops an alibi on their lawyer family member .. who had been out abusing underage youths for several years ... Sick, isn't it

Well, my journalist contact said to me .. 'it's not surprising, if the crooked lawyer has been sending his kids to private school and buying his wife a new merc estate and a lavish new house on the back of his clients, is it ' ... and, he has a point. That's certainly the way it was with Penman & Howitt in my own case ... so .. no surprises to me then .. and that's the way it is with most crooked lawyers ... spending their looted client's money on themselves & their family ..

Obviously then, Mrs Crooked Lawyer doesn't want to loose her Mercedes estate & children of Mr Crooked Lawyer don't want to give up their client funded lifestyle, just because daddy has been discovered ripping off all his clients ...

Just think about that for a second ... while you are paying anything up to £150 + VAT for a lawyers letter to someone (the Home Office manages a letter at £11, for comparison), your lawyer is also ripping you off in many other ways, for his own benefit, his family's benefit - and also perhaps for the benefit of having a mistress & even a rent boy on the side, as is happening in one case just now involving one of Edinburgh's 'leading lawyers' .. Poor clients, and the corporate clients too ..if they only knew they were being ripped off right, left & centre.

There is a case, maybe much more than my own which demonstrates what I am talking about. A horrible case indeed .. and one which has terrorised the family of the client so much, they are living in fear of further reprisals ... from the legal profession.

The case I am talking about, where for now, I will refer to the client as "client H", revolves around a complaint made to the Law Society of Scotland against a lawyer, after a series of legal cases were dropped in connection with a land sale & boundary dispute, ultimately resulting in the loss of land, over £70,000 plus to the client, and a significantly reduced valuation on his remaining property. It seems the whole time the lawyer was acting for the client, he was also friends with, and had a financial interest, with the other party in the case.

The Law Society of Scotland took over three years to investigate & consider the complaint which was apparently dismissed, on the insistence of the lawyer members of the complaints committee, along with the representative of the lawyer who was the subject of the complaint. All this despite, apparently, the Law Society reporter in the case recommending prosecution before the Scottish Solicitors Discipline Tribunal. Almost, a rerun of the Penman complaint then ... and there was I thinking lawyers weren't allowed representatives at Complaints Committees after the Penman case .. what a fraud !

There was certainly, from what I see, a considerable weight of material evidence, witnesses, & more which justified the complaint. There was certainly obvious evidence of financial loss, unjustified delays in pursuing court cases despite instructions to proceed issued many times, clearly faked papers & letters, faked files, faked memos, and even a worrying complicity by a major Scottish Bank to cover up a significant deception & fraud by the lawyer in moving his client's money into his own personal & business accounts, and even his wife's accounts.

I am concerned, to say the least, that a 'major Scottish Bank' (you will have to guess which, for now), decided to falsify paperwork on behalf of a lawyer who was clearly embezzling client funds for his own and his family's personal gain. There is no doubt, the Bank did this, to cover up for the lawyer concerned - either arising from a request from the lawyer to do so, or because it was their policy to do so.

Unfortunately, a Bank covering up for a crooked lawyer seems to be a common thing (especially THIS particular Bank). Collusion between a Bank & an accused lawyer has cropped up in many complaints against lawyers .. especially when the question of winding up estates & wills has been the subject of the complaint, so when dealing with lawyers, Banks & Financial institutions in the same issue, clients must be vigilant, because a swindle is certainly on the way, the first chance the lawyer gets.

Further examples of the intimidation against client H :

Four weeks after client H made the complaint against his lawyer, the crooked lawyer threatened Mr H with an action for defamation, quoting he had the support of the Law Society of Scotland in any such case he wished to pursue against the complaining client. The actual 'defamation' was, making the complaint to the Law Society of Scotland. Hardly a defamation .. complaining against a lawyer who was swindling a client ...

The Law Society apparently denied this, but the crooked lawyer had been making sure word of mouth was used around the legal profession to ensure client H would have difficulty in getting legal representation to defend against such a claim, as client H had been to several lawyers after receiving the threat, and they all refused to take on the case. Incidentally, the Law Society of Scotland were seemingly made aware of every single meeting between client H and legal firms on the issue of client H's ex lawyer's claim of defamation, so, it certainly confirmed that lawyers all report home to Drumsheugh Gardens for instructions, when one of their colleagues is caught with their fingers in the till.

Worse was to follow - much worse, for client H, where the crooked lawyer's family members & friends seem to have decided to embarked on a campaign of hate against client H's family, in several acts of intimidation with an obvious motive to thwart the complaint made against their relative.

For example, in one horrific incident, the solicitor's son & some of his friends, threatened to rape one of client H's daughters, unless client H dropped the complaint. The threat was witnessed, and reported. No action was taken other than a warning to the solicitor's son.

The solicitor's daughters who go to same school as client H's children, undertook a campaign of hate & bullying, to support their father, the crooked solicitor, spreading lies around the School & locality that client H's children were abused, were thieves, had criminal records, and were into drugs - all of which was plainly untrue. The solicitor's children were apparently warned several times about their conduct, and admitted they had significantly changed their behaviour at School towards client H's children, because client H had made a complaint against their father. Unsurprisingly, client H's children were eventually forced to leave school because of bullying & lies spread by the crooked lawyer's children.

On several occasions, the crooked lawyer in this case, gave the Police several 'anonymous tips' on client H .. all of which were false and were seen by the Police to have been made in an effort to harass the client. To join in the fun, the lawyer's wife also made several complaints to the Police, including what were thought to be several anonymous tips by phone, of alleged criminal activity by client H. This continued until the lawyer's wife was told in no uncertain terms she may be charged herself with supplying false information & wasting Police time unless she stopped what she was doing - in addition to her "constant following of client H's wife around town" . No charges ever resulted against client H from the false information provided to the Police by either the lawyer or other members of his family, and the Police were statisfied that all information was provided to them on a motive of revenge against client H, however, no action was taken over the false information.

Apparently, client H's wider family has also been affected because of the complaint, with the client's sister sacked from her job because the crooked lawyer befriended her boss, for the sole purpose it seems, of furthering his campaign against client H's family.

Client H's car & house have also been vandalised & broken into several times - this has only happened since he made the complaint against his lawyer to the Law Society of Scotland. The suspects, one of whom was actually caught trying to sell valuables from client H's house, are clients of the crooked lawyer and have been for years, widely known in their community for house burglary, theft, violence & drug dealing. It has been speculated by several people connected with that investigation that the lawyer asked the accused to 'go after' client H.

Client H also had a visit from the Inland Revenue. This was in 'information supplied' in connection with alleged business deals, income from which was not declared. The information of course, turned out to be false, although this was found only after a heavy audit from the Inland Revenue against client H, along with actual searches of his premises. It was ultimately admitted by an Inland Revenue official to client H, the [false] information had come from the lawyer whom client H had complained against, and that the Inland Revenue had been unaware of these events prior to them receiving information on client H. Needless to say, client H doesn't believe that, and from what I have read of the matter, neither do I.

Not to be tamed by client H's complaint, it seems the crooked lawyer in question, has also been swindling a few other clients in the area, on a few property deals, and also on Council house sales to tenants, where deliberate delays to paperwork for more money, & apparently, offers to fund purchases of Council properties have been made (in an effort to gain ownership of a few people's homes & lives). He is a big wheel in his local bar association .. a pillar of the legal community .. .and a crook. A good example then of a crooked lawyer. Maybe .. he is your lawyer ?

Certainly folks - when a crooked lawyer is caught out .. he finds plenty around him to provide as many lies & alibis as possible to get himself off the hook .. even right up to the Complaints Committee hearings & beyond. I know this myself from my own experience - and from the cases you report to me, and while some might say the terms of client H's case are extreme, what happened to client H is far more common than anyone cares to admit, and this has to be stopped.

You can see now, why regulation needs to be taken away from the legal profession. It has to be taken away from the legal profession, because lawyers can't investigate lawyers - all they do is cover up for each other .. and target clients who complain. How can a profession be allowed to police itself when all they do is use that privilege to rip off everyone in sight.

Time then for a little more independent regulation then ? Time for even conduct complaints to be taken away from the Law Society of Scotland, time for a full review of the Law Society's conduct over the years towards clients who have complained against their lawyers, ... and time for these legal thugs to be thrown out of running politics, and the Judicial & legal system in Scotland for their own benefit.

Search This Blog

Contact the Diary

Have a tip or a story about a lawyer, a judge, the legal profession, Judiciary, Crown Office, a Court case, issues of Justice or Injustice, information on corruption in public bodies, politics & Government?

InjusticeTV

Crown Corrupt - Prosecutors criminal convictions revealed

Exclusive Report: Documents obtained by the Scottish Sun newspaper reveal Prosecutors based at Scotland’s Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) have been charged with a string of criminal offences over crimes ranging from violence to misuse of drugs, making threats and offences against Police Officers.

Crown Office Jet Set Prosecutors air travel junkets revealed

Exclusive Report: Prosecutors based in Edinburgh at the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) - are now spending as much time in the air jetting between international destinations than chasing some of Scotland’s biggest crooks, tax dodgers, gangsters & serial offenders.

Documents obtained by the Scottish Sun newspaper show Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland and his team of staff jetting off to 39 international destinations including Hong Kong, Mauritius, Taiwan South Africa, Australia, Malta, San Francisco, and New York – all visited by Crown Office employees on taxpayer funded air junkets. Read more here: CRIME FLIES: Crown Office jet set junket racket

The proposals, backed by cross party MSPs during a debate in the Parliament’s main chamber on 9 October 2014 - Debating the Judges - call for the creation of a publicly available register of judicial interests containing information on judges backgrounds, their personal wealth, undeclared earnings, business & family connections inside & outside of the legal profession, offshore investments, hospitality, details on recusals and other information routinely lodged in registers of interest across all walks of public life in the UK and around the world.

Need a Lawyer?

Yes, sometimes we all need a lawyer. Whether the reason is criminal defence or civil law & litigation, or help against injustice, an unaccountable judiciary, adversarial institutions & public bodies or challenging poor legislation, there are always some things which can be done much better with a lawyer, than without.

But, be careful where you tread. Think first, before you spend your assets on the legal profession, unless you have clear goals, a time line to stick to, and make sure your solicitor plays by the rules as much as you should adhere to in your dealings with the justice system and your legal representatives.

With no gain or favour in mind, and under strict rules of no interference with solicitor-client relationships once established, Diary of Injustice & Scottish Law Reporters can occasionally recommend legal representatives to those in need of assistance with the law, legal aid, and defence in times of justice & injustice.

UK consumers want independent regulation of lawyers

Media Report: RESEARCH conducted by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) – the body charged with investigating solicitors in England & Wales, shows there is strong support in the rest of the UK for a move to make the SRA fully independent of the Law Society of England & Wales.

Law & Disorder - Law Society self regulation protects solicitors

Crime Society: The powerful Law Society of Scotland – the lawyer’s trade union body which controls self regulation of Scottish solicitors – is facing calls to be stripped of any role in regulating the legal profession.

The Scottish Sun’s The Big Read: Law and disorder reports: CRITICS are calling for an end to the secretive “old boys’ club” which sees Scots lawyers police themselves. It took the Law Society of Scotland four years to give police details of its probe into an alleged mortgage fraud linked to solicitor Christopher Hales and MP Michelle Thomson. But legal experts insist this would not have happened if we had the same system of outside supervision that operates down south.

A new Lord President: Selecting a top judge for Scotland

The position of Lord President – with a salary of £220,655 a year, including perks, international travel and unrivalled power to challenge even the Scottish Parliament - is responsible for leadership of the entire Scottish judiciary in addition to chairing the Board of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. The Lord President is the most senior judge in Scotland, with authority over any court established under Scots law, apart from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

In response to questions from MSPs, JCR Gillian Thompson said: “I do not see that there is a reasonable argument to be made against people who are in public service—I might go further and say, in particular, people who are paid by the public pound—providing information, within reason, about their other activities.” Facing further detailed questions from the committee, JCR Gillian Thompson remained of the view judges should declare their interests including business activities, shareholdings and more – in a publicly available register of judicial interests.

Scotland's first Judicial Complaints Reviewer supports creating a register of interests for judges

The top judge came unstuck after he opposed the declaration of judicial interests, wealth & connections to big business. Prior to retirement, Gill waged a bitter two year battle with Scottish Parliament MSPs who are investigating proposals to create a register of judicial interests.

Wolffe Hall: Parliament House land titles lost to Faculty of Advocates

Media Report: Aninvestigation has revealedParliament House – the seat of power for Scotland’s judiciary and the nation’s highest, most expensive, elusive and pro-big business courts – has been lost to Edinburgh City Council after it was revealed Scottish Ministers gifted the land titles to the Faculty of Advocates after a £58m public funded refit of the sprawling court complex. Media attention to the land grab and questions in the Scottish Parliament have prompted Edinburgh City Council to demand the courts be returned to public ownership.

In a speech to the Commonwealth Law Conference 2015 in Glasgow, Lord Gill went on to joke about protesters being lucky they are not dragged away by Police. Gill took further shots at politics, judicial independence and democracy before fleeing the legal gathering with Lord Neuberger and other judges after they learned Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was booked to speak at the event.

Revealed: The bank of Scottish Legal Aid

Revealed: TIMES ARE TOUGH but not for Scotland’s legal profession as it was revealed the Scottish Legal Aid Board handed over more than One Billion Pounds of public money to lawyers since the 2008 financial market crash. The Billion pound Bank of Scottish Legal Aid is there to help out Scotland’s ‘struggling’ lawyers looking for a second car, fishing rights, sending kids to posh private schools, or a third buy-to-let property. Scottish Legal Aid figures paid to lawyers since 2008 reveal: 2013-14 £150.5m, 2012-13 £150.2m, 2011-12 £150.7m, 2010-11 £161.4m, 2009-10 £150.5m, 2008-09 £150.2m, 2007-08 £155.1m, total: £1.06Billion (£1,068.6m)

Scottish Parliament debate urges support for register of judicial interests

Media ReportMSPs overwhelmingly support a petition urging the Scottish Government to give further consideration to a register of interests for judges. The 90 minute debate, held on Thursday 09 October 2014 in the Scottish Parliament’s main chamber saw msps criticise Scotland’s secretive judges who refuse to disclose their hidden wealth, secret links to big business and even criminal records. Read more about the proposals for judicial transparency put forward in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary and watch video clips of MSPs debating a register of interests for judges at InjusticeTV. The official report of the debate including video footage of each MSP who spoke can be found here: Debating the Judges

Revealed: Judges International travel junkets & state visits

Exclusive Report: JET-SETTING judges spent £26,000 of taxpayers' cash on overseas trips last year, a Scottish Sun on Sunday investigation can reveal. Top beaks flew out to destinations including Russia, Israel, Switzerland, Germany, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Qatar. The most expensive was a £5,800 trip to Canada by Scotland's second most senior judge, Lord Carloway. Lord Gill - who is the Lord President - also spent five days on a £2,800 trip to Doha, Qatar, where he gave speech on judicial ethics.

Judicial Rich-List reveals Judges financial links to crime companies

Exclusive Report: DISCLOSURES of judges personal shareholdings obtained under Freedom of Information legislation from the Scottish Court Service reveal a startling snapshot of the wealth of several key members of Scotland’s judiciary who sit on a powerful quango which controls Scotland’s courts. The declarations of the seven judicial members of the Scottish Court Service Board – including Scotland's top judge, the Lord President & Lord Justice General Brian Gill who earns £220K a year - reveal judges benefit financially from shareholdings in companies who provide services to the courts & justice system, companies convicted of criminal offences & involvement in ‘industrial’ espionage against China, banks fined for international financial market manipulation, and companies involved in bribes, bid rigging, and tax dodging.

Revealed: Top judge forced to recuse over relative in court

Exclusive Report: SCOTLAND’S top judge, the Lord President Lord Brian Gill has been forced to stand aside from hearing an unidentified case in the Court of Session because a relative who turned out to be Brian Gill jr, one of Lord Gill’s sons, represented a party involved in the court action which court officials are keeping secret.

Judge invests in bribes scandal companies

Exclusive Report: An investigation by the Scottish Sun on Sunday newspaper has revealed a top judge holds shares in a firm hit with a £13.9million proceeds-of-crime bill for bribing Saddam Hussein's regime,The Scottish Sun on Sunday can reveal. Sheriff Principal Alastair Dunlop 62, has a stake in Glasgow based Weir Group, hammered in 2011 for paying kickbacks to land contracts in Iraq. He also has shares in mining giant Rio Tinto, whose executives admitted bribery in China four years ago. A Holyrood committee is considering proposals that would require judges and sheriffs to publish their outside interests, including details of their finances, reported here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Judges reveal conflicts of interest

Exclusive Report: The Sunday Mail newspaper reports Scotland's judges are coming clean when they have to step away from court cases because of a conflict of interests. Scotland’s top judge has decided that for the first time the public can see online why judges and sheriffs have stood down from hearing criminal trials and civil actions. It comes after the Sunday Mail told of MSPs' anger that the Lord President Lord Gill had dismissed calls for a judicial register of interests and snubbed invitations to discuss his position at a Holyrood committee, reported in previous coverage here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Judges interests & shareholdings revealed

Exclusive Report: An investigation by the Sunday Herald newspaper reveals a senior sheriff presided over a court hearing involving Tesco at the same time as he held shares in the multi-national supermarket giant. Sheriff Principal Dunlop QC did not absent himself because having shares in a company that is party to a court action does not require a member of the judiciary to step down from a case. A Holyrood committee is considering proposals that would require judges and sheriffs to publish their outside interests, including details of their finances, reported in previous coverage here: A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Top judge in private meeting on judicial transparency petition

Media Report: Top judge Lord Gill met petitions committee members behind closed doors to discuss Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary and conflict of interests, but no minutes were taken. The Sunday Mail reports Scotland’s top judge met two MSPs in private after twice snubbing requests to give evidence in front of their committee. The judge is opposed to the transparency call and has previously refused invitations to attend the Scottish Parliament and face questions in public on his opposition to judicial transparency and the creation of a register of judicial interests. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Small concession offered by top judge as calls grow for judicial transparency

Judges should not be above scrutiny

Media Editorial: The Sunday Herald newspaper says in an editorial Judges should not be above scrutiny. The Lord President, who is the country's top judge, is against requiring his colleagues to list their financial interests (as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary) but he seems to have recognised political concerns about a lack of transparency.To this end, he is investigating the possibility of compiling a register of "recusals", which means examples of judges ceasing an interest in a court case due to a perceived conflict. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

Scotland’s top judge takes anti-transparency position on proposal for judicial interests register

Lack of judicial transparency - No justice if it cannot be seen

Media Editorial: The Sunday Mail newspaper says Senior judge's refusal to give evidence to MSPs shows a lack of transparency, says Mail Opinion on calls for judicial transparency in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary. It was an opportunity for Scotland’s top judge to go to Parliament and talk about how our legal system works and might work better. It would have added, as the public relations executives and politicians like to say, a little transparency. Instead, his refusal has only hardened the suspicion that our judges live and work in a bubble smelling of horse hair wigs, vintage port and even more vintage attitudes. More on the debate on judge’s interests can be viewed here : A Register of Interests for Scotland's Judiciary

NEWS SPECIAL: Coverage of the Annual Report 2012-2013 of Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer reveals Scottish judges are slammed for secrecy, anti-transparency views & how they investigate complaints against other judges.Moi Ali, appointed by the SNP’s Justice Secretary as Scotland’s first Judicial Complaints Reviewersaid: “I think fundamentally the problem is the legislation. “The way it’s created, it’s about self- regulation so you have judges judging judges’ conduct. There isn’t really an independent element.”. Read more HERE

REVEALED : Scotland’s Judicial Complaints Reviewer gave evidence to MSPs at the Scottish Parliament stating her office has no powers to properly investigate complaints against Scottish judges and that the judicial office regularly block access to files and information relating to complaints. In England & Wales, it is done very differently. Read more HERE

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: Scotland’s judiciary are refusing to cooperate with the independently appointed Judicial Complaints Reviewer over complaints made against Scottish judges. Scotland’s top judge also stands accused of regularly blocking independent access to key documents relating to allegations made against judges. Read more HERE

Scotland's top judge objects to Holyrood transparency call for a register of judicial interests

Exclusive Report : Scotland’s top judge Lord Gill claims judges are exempt from declaring their full financial & other interests as called for in Petition PE1458: Register of Interests for members of Scotland's judiciary A register could be created by the Scottish Parliament or by the Judicial Office for Scotland, which incorporates the Lord President’s office. Typically, such registers reveal details of hospitality, gifts, property ownership, shareholdings and personal or financial connections to outside organisations.

If you think Scotland's judges are honest, think again. An investigation reveals the true extent of their undeclared finances & interests. Read more HERE. Investigations have revealed Scotland's Judges have secret criminal records, massive wealth, unchecked influence, & murky investments along with connections to offshore tax havens, all of which go undeclared as there is no register of interests for the judiciary.

Business Interests: Are Scottish Judges overseas trips really just about law conferences?

Exclusive Report: Scotland's judges have racked up thousands of air miles on overseas trips, including jaunts to the US, India, Morocco and Malaysia. Taxpayers paid £83,644 to send judges and sheriffs and their partners around the world in the past three years revealed in this document. The Lord President also travels to Taiwan, South Africa & other countries yet refuses to travel 700m to the Scottish Parliament to face MSPs questions about judges’ secret undeclared interests.

Exclusive Report : A report published by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice reveals Scottish lawyers take home a lavish £161million in legal aid payments on a tiny client base compared to other EU countries’ lawyers. The EU REPORT also shows that Scotland disciplines a tiny number of lawyers compared to countries of similar size, and that Scotland’s sheriffs & judges top the EU pay league. A large proportion of alleged criminals reported to prosecutors in Scotland are also escaping justice while lawyers scoop up legal aid fees for dealing with cases which never make it to court.

EU Justice Report : Scots Justice System is most expensive, has poorest regulation in Europe

A MUST READ REPORT by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice reveals the Scottish justice system as the most unproductive, yet most expensive in the entire European Union. Scottish lawyers take tens of millions more in legal aid representing a population of 5 million than Italian lawyers who serve a population of 60 million. The report also reveals Scots judges are paid the highest in Europe, Scottish Sheriffs taking home an average taxpayer funded salary of £120K plus, while others in Scotland’s judiciary are paid £200K plus expenses.

The Scottish Civil Courts Review of 2009 authored by the then Lord Justice Clerk, now Lord President Lord Brian Gill, castigated Scotland’s Civil Justice System as being Victorian, costly, and unfit for purpose, yet years on from the review, little of the proposed reforms have been implemented due to pressure from vested interests in the legal world, and a lack of political will to deliver access to justice to all Scots.

The ‘independent’ lawyer run Scottish Legal Complaints Commission has lurched from scandal to scandal, and proved to be even worse at regulating complaints against Scottish solicitors than the Law Society of Scotland. Clients of Scottish solicitors who are forced to make complaints to the SLCC should read our previous reports on how the anti-client regulator may treat their case.

Exclusive Report: A Research Report from the University of Manchester School of Law, commissioned by the SLCC on the Law Society of Scotland’s two discredited client compensation schemes, the Master Insurance Policy & Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund reveals the extent of suicides, illness, broken families and financial ruin among clients who fall victim to rogue solicitors and attempt financial claims in order to recover funds & assets embezzled or stolen by their lawyers. The research report concludes the Law Society's Master Policy is set up “to allow solicitors to sleep at night”, so they can go on to ruin other unsuspecting clients. Read the full shocking story HERE

Name & Shame your crooked lawyer in the media

If you are making a complaint to the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission (SLCC), Law Society of Scotland or Faculty of Advocates about your solicitor or legal representatives, one of the best things you can do is tell the media about it & name your crooked lawyer.

Revealed: Suspended & Bankrupt lawyers are secretly still working in Scotland

Exclusive Report: An investigation has revealed twice suspended but still working as a solicitor John G O'Donnell has impersonated a deceased lawyer as part of an elaborate fraud, while staff at the law firm he worked at said nothing to clients. The Law Society of Scotland did nothing to prevent O’Donnell continuing his reign of scams against clients even after he was twice suspended & made bankrupt. O’Donnell was only found out after one of his clients, saw his photograph in an earlier Sunday Mail newspaper investigation..

Exclusive Report: An investigation has revealed a lawyer who works for the Citizens Advice Bureau is being probed after it’s claimed he targeted vulnerable clients for a crooked legal firm. A client involved in a rent dispute turned to CAB lawyer Gilbert Anderson, who is based at Hamilton Sheriff Court on a taxpayer funded salary. But the ex-Royal Marine sent the client and a friend into the clutches of twice suspended solicitor John G O'Donnell , who does not have a practicing certificate.

BONUS CULTURE of Crown Office fails to deliver justice

An investigation reveals Scotland’s Prosecutors have been caught up in their own BONUS CULTURE where fat cash hand-outs at the end of the year worth tens of thousands of pounds and sly Press Releases short on facts seem to be more important than catching real crooks and delivering on protecting the Scots public.

One of Scotland’s most famous Crooked Lawyers, Andrew Penman of Stormonth Darling Solicitors, Kelso in the Scottish Borders. Read the MEDIA COVERAGE of the case, details which the Law Society of Scotland and several Edinburgh law firms tried to bury.

If you have a similar experience with Stormonth Darling Solicitors, or any other corrupt law firm, we want to hear about it at scottishlawreporters@gmail.com